Trying to equate voting democrat as liberal and voting republican as conservative, and therefore democrats are open minded, score high on openness and the reverse for republicans, therefore be a cool kid like him. That being the case, I don't buy this, someone can be low on openness but want a welfare state, open minded because they want little state control and more freedom, so it works both ways. Reminded me of something I heard before, that republicans formed to combat slavery, and abolish it

Trying to equate voting democrat as liberal and voting republican as conservative, and therefore democrats are open minded, score high on openness and the reverse for republicans, therefore be a cool kid like him. That being the case, I don't buy this, someone can be low on openness but want a welfare state, open minded because they want little state control and more freedom, so it works both ways.

Someone high on the openness dimension but not wanting a welfare state would be low on the "care" dimension and would be a Libertarian. Haidt talks about Libertarians elsewhere.

There are doubtless other combinations of the dimensions, but Liberal and Conservative are the two big ones.

On the original TED video, the guy certainly spends a lot of time stroking liberalism (you know, the open minded, intelligent, artistic, creative and uber cool) and demonizing conservatism (you know, the close minded, drab, accountant-like, dumb and unartistic side) to, in the end, arrive at the fact that tribalism = bad.

On the original TED video, the guy certainly spends a lot of time stroking liberalism (you know, the open minded, intelligent, artistic, creative and uber cool) and demonizing conservatism (you know, the close minded, drab, accountant-like, dumb and unartistic side) to, in the end, arrive at the fact that tribalism = bad.

On the original TED video, the guy certainly spends a lot of time stroking liberalism (you know, the open minded, intelligent, artistic, creative and uber cool) and demonizing conservatism (you know, the close minded, drab, accountant-like, dumb and unartistic side) to, in the end, arrive at the fact that tribalism = bad.

I had to LOL at the irony, honestly.

No? he doesn't. He very clearly and unambiguously argues that both are necessary, and even uses a (somewhat tacky) Yin-Yang analogy to make this point.

No? he doesn't. He very clearly and unambiguously argues that both are necessary, and even uses a (somewhat tacky) Yin-Yang analogy to make this point.

Right, after consuming 15+ minutes out of 19 taking a very, very slanted view at things, completely using his own bias filters and misunderstanding of liberal/conservative, then completely ignoring a TON of very interesting data from their moral tests since they would defy the point he's been making.

Like I said, his overall conclusion is "tribalism = bad" which is why the end result is "both are necessary". The irony is the 75-80% of his presentation is total, unadulterated tribalism... and his viewpoint, IMO, is greatly hindered by tribalism.

Right, after consuming 15+ minutes out of 19 taking a very, very slanted view at things, completely using his own bias filters and misunderstanding of liberal/conservative, then completely ignoring a TON of very interesting data from their moral tests since they would defy the point he's been making.

Like I said, his overall conclusion is "tribalism = bad" which is why the end result is "both are necessary". The irony is the 75-80% of his presentation is total, unadulterated tribalism... and his viewpoint, IMO, is greatly hindered by tribalism.

I'm not sure we saw the same presentation. He went out of his way to show the limitations of Liberalism.

At 0:00 - 10:30 he just introduces the subject matter and the dimensions.

At 10:30 - 11:30 he uses Hieronymous' Bosh's painting as an analogy for why lack of authority or tradition lead to negative social consequences.

At 11:30 - 13:20 he refers to an empirical study that showed how [Conservatively] punishing offenders can lead to social harmony and avert a tragedy of the commons. He even hints at the importance of religion and the belief in God to the pursual of that end.

At 13:20 - 14:00 he suggests that Conservative ideology (i.e. using all the moral dimensions) was the primary causal factor of civilization and says that civilization could not have come about using only the two Liberal dimensions.

At 14:20+ he talks about the importance of both Liberalism and Conservatism.

This guy is obviously a close-minded hypocrite. And his ideas are fucking delusional. What a wanna-be. He won't eat at Applebee's? I mean, come on, I guess he's open-minded enough not to. All that openness just amazes me... openness to being deluded is what I call it.

You see it that way by applying your own filters/biases versus sticking to what is objective vs. what is interpreted.

For example, you didn't mention the conflict on how one moment he defines liberalism being open to new experiences, then explains comically how they would never eat at Applebees, etc. etc.

The very definitions he uses are total fluid prejudice and already designed to force a given ideology.

The entire presentation IS from a very devout, slanted, left viewpoint. The analysis of the data is also taking only a liberal standpoint. The conclusion is rife with such hypocrisy and filters a lot of information as it takes this stance.

The end result is very ironic since it is a display of tribalism that concludes that eliminating tribalism is the first step to actually improving the world.

You see it that way by applying your own filters/biases versus sticking to what is objective vs. what is interpreted.

For example, you didn't mention the conflict on how one moment he defines liberalism being open to new experiences, then explains comically how they would never eat at Applebees, etc. etc.

I don't see a contradiction here, though. He meant that Applebees is a bland and formulaic restaurant chain. That is, as contrasted with some independent cafe run by hippies with its own unique atmosphere. It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) you're taking "openness to experience" to mean a kind nihlism or indifference about choice, which it most certainly isn't.

The very definitions he uses are total fluid prejudice and already designed to force a given ideology.

The entire presentation IS from a very devout, slanted, left viewpoint. The analysis of the data is also taking only a liberal standpoint. The conclusion is rife with such hypocrisy and filters a lot of information as it takes this stance.

The end result is very ironic since it is a display of tribalism that concludes that eliminating tribalism is the first step to actually improving the world.

You're going to have to flesh out your argument with some examples, so I can understand the source of your complaint. So far all I've heard is vague accusations about how he's a liberal (which he openly is), which doesn't make him a hypcrite. How is a conclusion that promotes rapprochement in any way tribalistic?

I don't see a contradiction here, though. He meant that Applebees is a bland and formulaic restaurant chain. That is, as contrasted with some independent cafe run by hippies with its own unique atmosphere. It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) you're taking "openness to experience" to mean a kind nihlism or indifference about choice, which it most certainly isn't.

DERP.

1) How do you know what he meant as stated above? He didn't explain it further. I take it to mean he (and apparently no one he KNOWS which is what he referred to and SAID himself), would eat at Applebee's. Anything else is your interpretation of.... go by what he said, not what you think he might've meant lol. You are taking a mere sentence and applying subjective meaning to it that exists only in your mind.
2) So you think being close-minded to eating at Applebee's = open-mindedness, or "openness to new experiences"? It doesn't, it means the opposite. Seems your main problem is that you fail to take ideas and apply them to life situations, to see hypocrisies and probably much-other, that exist in reality.

The truth here is that individuals mostly work from a combination of open and close-mindedness. Most people probably lie somewhere in the middle-ground. I find people with his ideas to be more on an extreme ground, and I'm more on a moderate ground. I'll eat at either, and the food might be good at both. Closed/open to new experiences is much more complicated than this guy refers to, and it's probably never been measured on large scale. In my case, if I don't eat at a restaurant, it's because of the quality of the food or service. I don't decide not to eat at a restaurant based on whether I think it's a "bland formulaic chain" or an "independent cafe". I'm open to both experiences.

If you're buying this guy's bullshit, then something went wrong somewhere.....

I didn't give vague accusations at all but very succinct and clear examples.

Also, the fact that you made it through the first 15 minutes of this video without dozens of "Whoah, wait a minute.. what?" moments does not give me a lot of confidence that pointing out these things will be a very constructive process...

Without any kind of objective facts, the video fairly immediately construes liberals are being more open minded, more open to new experiences, more artistic/creative, more wanting to change the world for the better, more active towards the weaker end of our society, etc. etc. etc. If you cannot pause on these and accept them so readily and at face value, it already illustrates that the objective has already left the building.

Many of these things are forms of the tribalistic lie that many liberals and conservatives perpetuate and are willing to swallow without alternatively questioning and raising issue with. ARE liberals more artisitc? Where are the facts or studies to prove this? And how many are the "correlation = causation" logical fallacies that liberals may pride themselves out of the same breathe how scientific they may be? Truth and objective truth requires correlation if it's to be accepted as a logical, scientific result. Hell, if you use random, non-scientific studies, you can prove the total opposite such as how conservative are much more open to new experiences giving how many new industries and technologies they risked to finance and invest to create, or how conservatives care more about the weak and poverty stricken based on how they statistically give to charities several fold more than liberals, etc .etc.

But all these statistics still do not objectively create such bold leaps of (il)logic.

The Applebees reference is just the first of many moments that should lead to head-scratching how "open to new experiences" is quickly followed up with "would never eat at Applebees" .. the video is rife with similar and an open mind will see them all. A not-so-open mind should at the minimum question the very brash and polarizing statements made. Such illustrations are always pure tribalism displays.

What is also fascinating is how political leaning tribalism always does rely almost entirely on a deeply polarized viewpoint of the opposition/opposite tribe. In the case of conservatives, it's a pot smoking, acid taking, unemployed, welfare recipient protester hippie liberal. In the case of liberals, it's a bible-thumping, confederate flag waving, Nascar-going church leader conservative. When such discussions can do so while eliminating the need for these and instead represent mainstream people, we'll have real progress.

1) How do you know what he meant? He didn't explain it further. I take it to mean he (and apparently no one he KNOWS which is what he referred to and SAID himself), would eat at Applebee's. Anything else is your interpretation of.... go by what he said, not what you think he might've meant lol.
2) So you think being close-minded to eating at Applebee's = open-mindedness, or "openness to new experiences"? It doesn't, it means the opposite. Seems your main problem is that you fail to take ideas and apply them to life situations, to see hypocrisies and probably much-other, that exist in reality.

If you actually bothered to watch, he explains it just before:

High openness => desire for different things and new experiences.
Low openness => desire for the familiar and dependable.

I'm sorry if it's a huge intellectual leap for you, but Applebees (or any chain-restaurant) is formulaic by definition. If you walk into one Applebees you've pretty much walked into all of them. Eating there again and again wouldn't gain an individual relatively new experiences, even if the menu was a little different from time to time. I suspect there is also the fact that most corporate advertising projects a reliable "family-first" image.

If you're buying this guy's bullshit, then something went wrong somewhere.....

Actually, I'll withhold judgment till I can examine the empirical data; I just find the subject matter provocative. I'm more worried about your jumping to conclusions from behind your brain fog of idiocy.

High openness => desire for different things and new experiences.
Low openness => desire for the familiar and dependable.

If you read, I was apparently talking about your subjective interpretation of the Applebee's comment, which is further explained in the sentence after. I wasn't speaking of the definition of "openness to new experiences".

Originally Posted by xerx

I'm sorry if it's a huge intellectual leap for you, but Applebees (or any chain-restaurant) is formulaic by definition. If you walk into one Applebees you've pretty much walked into all of them. Eating there again and again wouldn't gain an individual relatively new experiences, even if the menu was a little different from time to time. I suspect there is also the fact that most corporate advertising projects a reliable "family-first" image.

From my own highly-subjective interpretation, which is what you are going by for yourself, all the "hippie cafes" around here are formulaic as well, that I've eaten at. I live about 5 minutes from Berkeley. Regardless of whether you eat at Applebee's or Berkeley Bowl, the menu doesn't change too much, nor does the atmosphere, the crowd, or anything else for that matter. Applebee's has new items on the menu actually more often than Berkeley Bowl. I'm open enough to new experiences to eat at both. So if I "desire a different thing and a new experience" in completion, I really couldn't eat at either, because I've eaten at a shitload of both. Which is my point.... you are too subjectively defining the things he says..... The real difference is in the advertising.... Applebee's projects a different image and draws in a different crowd. Advertising doesn't mean truth. There's nothing any less formulaic about Berkeley Bowl than there is about Applebee's. It just caters to a different crowd. If you're talking chain restaurants, yes, there are also "independent cafes" here who turn into larger chains, so then, does an "independent cafe" become "formulaic", and if I eat there, does that mean I can't be a part of the in-crowd this guy is discussing? I mean, where are your lines, mr. open to new experiences. Just because there is more than one of a restaurant and it uses the same "formula" in each, doesn't mean it won't give me any less of a new experience than an independently-owned operation which is also mostly the same when I visit, nor does it mean that it's "bland".

If you go into the independently-owned hippie cafes around here, you will find a similar-minded crowd, similar menu, similar atmosphere. So in that way, it's just-as, if not more formulaic at times than a chain-based family restaurant. A hippie cafe is a hippie cafe is a hippie cafe.

It's more complicated than you want to believe it is. You seem to want easy answers, and ways of defining yourself. If anything, you are predictable and I'm not.

So, I rest my point, that determining I won't eat at Applebee's is more close-minded than deciding I will, which makes me less close-minded on that point. Applebee's is not any more familiar to me than Berkeley Bowl, nor is it any more dependable, in fact, less dependable overall. Nor will Applebee's offer me any more or less of a new experience than eating at Berkeley Bowl. So eating at Applebee's for me is not any more or less of an "open to new experiences" thing than eating at a hippie cafe. You are obviously more liberal than I am. So it's bullshit and entirely subjective, when you take into consideration how complicated it actually is.

In fact, I am the one constantly scoping for new restaurants, new places, new bars, and new experiences, and I'm less liberal than you are, and less likely to go along with the status-quo, apparently. Open your mind a bit, silly.

I didn't give vague accusations at all but very succinct and clear examples.

No you didn't. Not until this post.

Also, the fact that you made it through the first 15 minutes of this video without dozens of "Whoah, wait a minute.. what?" moments does not give me a lot of confidence that pointing out these things will be a very constructive process...

Without any kind of objective facts, the video fairly immediately construes liberals are being more open minded, more open to new experiences, more artistic/creative, more wanting to change the world for the better, more active towards the weaker end of our society, etc. etc. etc. If you cannot pause on these and accept them so readily and at face value, it already illustrates that the objective has already left the building.

Many of these things are forms of the tribalistic lie that many liberals and conservatives perpetuate and are willing to swallow without alternatively questioning and raising issue with. ARE liberals more artisitc? Where are the facts or studies to prove this? And how many are the "correlation = causation" logical fallacies that liberals may pride themselves out of the same breathe how scientific they may be? Truth and objective truth requires correlation if it's to be accepted as a logical, scientific result. Hell, if you use random, non-scientific studies, you can prove the total opposite such as how conservative are much more open to new experiences giving how many new industries and technologies they risked to finance and invest to create, or how conservatives care more about the weak and poverty stricken based on how they statistically give to charities several fold more than liberals, etc .etc.

But all these statistics still do not objectively create such bold leaps of (il)logic.

The Applebees reference is just the first of many moments that should lead to head-scratching how "open to new experiences" is quickly followed up with "would never eat at Applebees" .. the video is rife with similar and an open mind will see them all. A not-so-open mind should at the minimum question the very brash and polarizing statements made. Such illustrations are always pure tribalism displays.

What is also fascinating is how political leaning tribalism always does rely almost entirely on a deeply polarized viewpoint of the opposition/opposite tribe. In the case of conservatives, it's a pot smoking, acid taking, unemployed, welfare recipient protester hippie liberal. In the case of liberals, it's a bible-thumping, confederate flag waving, Nascar-going church leader conservative. When such discussions can do so while eliminating the need for these and instead represent mainstream people, we'll have real progress.

Uhm, He didn't arbitrarily define openness as "liberal" or "conservative". He gave the dimensions very concrete definitions* (such as low openness = desire for familiar surroundings) and conducted a statistical study asking self-described liberals or conservatives to identify the dimensions that best describe them.

According to his statistical data, liberals, on average, self-identified very highly with a few dimensions (such as care, fairness/equality) and low with everything else. Conservatives, on average, identified highly with all of them.

Since we're dealing with averages, there is nothing that says a self-identified conservative couldn't be a statistical anomaly and have the same preferences as a liberal. There is also nothing that suggests a conservative couldn't have normal conservative preferences, but with one or two anomalies such as scoring high on the care dimension.

* at least as concrete as you usually get on most of these types of surveys.

If you read, I was apparently talking about your subjective interpretation of the Applebee's comment, which is further explained in the sentence after. I wasn't speaking of the definition of "openness to new experiences".

From my own highly-subjective interpretation, which is what you are going by for yourself, all the "hippie cafes" around here are formulaic as well, that I've eaten at. I live about 5 minutes from Berkeley. Regardless of whether you eat at Applebee's or Berkeley Bowl, the menu doesn't change too much, nor does the atmosphere, the crowd, or anything else for that matter. Applebee's has new items on the menu actually more often than Berkeley Bowl. I'm open enough to new experiences to eat at both. So if I "desire a different thing and a new experience" in completion, I really couldn't eat at either, because I've eaten at a shitload of both. Which is my point.... you are too subjectively defining the things he says..... The real difference is in the advertising.... Applebee's projects a different image and draws in a different crowd. Advertising doesn't mean truth. There's nothing any less formulaic about Berkeley Bowl than there is about Applebee's. It just caters to a different crowd. If you're talking chain restaurants, yes, there are also "independent cafes" here who turn into larger chains, so then, does an "independent cafe" become "formulaic", and if I eat there, does that mean I can't be a part of the in-crowd this guy is discussing? I mean, where are your lines, mr. open to new experiences.

If you go into the independently-owned hippie cafes around here, you will find a similar-minded crowd, similar menu, similar atmosphere. So in that way, it's just-as, if not more formulaic at times than a chain-based family restaurant. A hippie cafe is a hippie cafe is a hippie cafe.

It's more complicated than you want to believe it is. You seem to want easy answers, and ways of defining yourself.

Holy shit, the guy was just making a joke. Obviously, any real action has causes that are extremely complicated.

The humor is in the hyperbole and the simplification of reality with biased brush strokes. You'll note he also made jokes about liberals in his presentation.

Conservatives tend to prefer fixed, literal interpretations of political and religious documents, which they carry into the here-and-now under the assumption that their interpretations still pervade. Consequentially, their ethical attitude isn't to resist change, per se, but to deny new perspectives that don't fit into their schema. While this attitude is inherently more "rational", it's not necessarily more analytic or attuned to reality. Their rationale may even apply to the sciences.

Liberals tend to be uncertain about fixed interpretations; it seems like what's commonly coined as the "open-mindedness" of liberals is actually an anxious attitude that rejects all perspectives other than ones of a Romantic nature. Sometimes, when liberals forget romanticism, they become nihilists who don't give a shit about the dynamics of culture and politics. This, more or less, probably ties into @InvisibleJim's claim that liberals sometimes hold low standards. At least for themselves.

Conservatives place more faith in the structure that supports them and the void that consumes others, while liberals place more faith in the void they inhabit and the auxiliary structure meant to keep them safe.

You're going to run into paradoxes if you make allegations about political preferences for "open-mindedness", "new experiences", and "familiarity". True open-mindedness entails one's brain fell out of their skull, and true close-mindedness entails that one's brain is just a rotting clump of obsidian.

I think the ideas people have of "what is democrat" and "what is republican" are so extreme and incorrect because people are listening to too much warped news/people that are telling us bullshit non-realities and offering extreme pov.
Conservative does not equal republican and liberal does not equal democrat.

I think the ideas people have of "what is democrat" and "what is republican" are so extreme and incorrect because people are listening to too much warped news/people that are telling us bullshit non-realities and offering extreme pov.
Conservative does not equal republican and liberal does not equal democrat.

B-but, if I don't villainize the other guy by making erroneous claims about his character, I'll have to blame MYSELF for what's happening to me.

Vid simply classifies people into two (three) political arenas in U.S. denying others which is not really surprising. When you (xerx) do the same on this forum amongst active populace here, you're going to arrive at really hilarious scenes by asking who's liberal and who is conservative.